Texas Trooper Who Arrested Sandra Bland Is Indicted on Perjury Charge

[ClosedCaption]

No, he started the shit by asking about her mood.

How is asking someone mood 'starting shit'?

You are so full of horse shit.

Why are you so angry?

I am not angry.

Why are you so passive?

You sound angry. Calm down already

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

When the LEO asked her to put out the cigarette she refused to comply.
All LEO are trained to 'secure the scene' for their own safety. Ever had someone flick a lit cigarette in your face?
The LEO now has the police union lawyers defending him.
This case will turn out like 99% of other cases: LEO is found not guilty. LEO settles with the city. LEO wins the ******* lottery in essence.

And who pays the freight for all those lawyers?

By the way, I don't believe the three arresting officers had anything to do with that black mans death in Maryland.

LEOs who belong to police unions pay dues so when some ******* piece of shit hangs themselves the LEO has lawyers to defend him/her.

There was no reason on earth for the cop to arrest that little girl. The cop should have just sent her on her way. He wouldn't be fighting to keep his job job, and this could lead to a prison term

He's started the fight with her .... "You seem very irritated..." 8:45 into the video.
She had said NOTHING prior to that time and his ******* opinion of her mood was unprofessional and totally irrelevant. He provoked her.

Bullshit.

She was being noncompliant and giving him shit.

He should have beaten her a little himself, after draining his tazer battery on her..

Watch the video. Start at 8:00 since you seem a little slow.
It's assholes like you that need to be put in wood chipping machines and spread around the flower bed.

 

[JimBowie1958]

You sound angry. Calm down already

I *WAS* calm, but now your starting to piss me off, MO@$%@ F%@#$%!

lol, just kidding

I am and always will remain calm as a cat in a food coma

 

[ClosedCaption]

You sound angry. Calm down already

I *WAS* calm, but now your starting to piss me off, MO@$%@ F%@#$%!

lol, just kidding

I am and always will remain calm as a cat in a food coma

Thats how you manipulate someone to become angry...thats what the cop did. Hannity uses that tactic a lot.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

No, he started the shit by asking about her mood.

How is asking someone mood 'starting shit'?

You are so full of horse shit.

Professional police officers don't give a shit about your mood.

If they are trained properly and don't have large streaks of yellow up their back and tiny little dicks like yours, then they know that people who get traffic tickets aren't going to be happy.

He was out of line trying to provoke her. Watch the video or go back to watching cartoons.

Got it, yet?

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

You sound angry. Calm down already

I *WAS* calm, but now your starting to piss me off, MO@$%@ F%@#$%!

lol, just kidding

I am and always will remain calm as a cat in a food coma

Thats how you manipulate someone to become angry...thats what the cop did. Hannity uses that tactic a lot.

Sandra Bland was from Chicago, she was not a southern black woman who was taught to kiss white trash ass. She repeatedly asked him what he was arresting her for and he never answered.

 

[dannyboys]

Anyway Karma bite in the ass. Don't mouth off and refuse to comply with a LEOs commands.
When a LEO stops anyone for any reason they never know who the person is. Do they have a loaded gun in their lap? Are they going to flee? Do they have a trunk full of heroin?

LEOs are trained to 'secure the scene'. That means removing anything that could be used as a weapon. A lit cigarette is considered to be a potential weapon.
Have a lit cigarette grond into your face and decide if it's a weapon.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

You sound angry. Calm down already

I *WAS* calm, but now your starting to piss me off, MO@$%@ F%@#$%!

lol, just kidding

I am and always will remain calm as a cat in a food coma

You are in a coma, you just don't know it.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Anyway Karma bite in the ass. Don't mouth off and refuse to comply with a LEOs commands.
When a LEO stops anyone for any reason they never know who the person is. Do they have a loaded gun in their lap? Are they going to flee? Do they have a trunk full of heroin?

LEOs are trained to 'secure the scene'. That means removing anything that could be used as a weapon. A lit cigarette is considered to be a potential weapon.
Have a lit cigarette grond into your face and decide if it's a weapon.

Yes but we''re talking about this incident and not one with a loaded gun or heroin. And yes, since anything CAN BE a weapon he fucked up by not telling her to remove her heels and fingernails also. Dumbass

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

Anyway Karma bite in the ass. Don't mouth off and refuse to comply with a LEOs commands.
When a LEO stops anyone for any reason they never know who the person is. Do they have a loaded gun in their lap? Are they going to flee? Do they have a trunk full of heroin?

LEOs are trained to 'secure the scene'. That means removing anything that could be used as a weapon. A lit cigarette is considered to be a potential weapon.
Have a lit cigarette grond into your face and decide if it's a weapon.

So she was INSIDE her car and he felt threatened that she was going to:
1. Jump out of her car
2. Take him down
3. Pin him to the ground
4. Grind her cig into his face.

That is the most idiotic, illogical bullshit I've ever read on this board. Put your big boy pants on or else go back to your video games.

 

[ClosedCaption]

She could strangle him with panties...So an officers commands to remove your panties would also be reasonable according to Danny the boot licker

 

[bucs90]

So.....has any cop hater specified what...EXACTLY...he lied about?

 

[bucs90]

Anyway Karma bite in the ass. Don't mouth off and refuse to comply with a LEOs commands.
When a LEO stops anyone for any reason they never know who the person is. Do they have a loaded gun in their lap? Are they going to flee? Do they have a trunk full of heroin?

LEOs are trained to 'secure the scene'. That means removing anything that could be used as a weapon. A lit cigarette is considered to be a potential weapon.
Have a lit cigarette grond into your face and decide if it's a weapon.

So she was INSIDE her car and he felt threatened that she was going to:
1. Jump out of her car
2. Take him down
3. Pin him to the ground
4. Grind her cig into his face.

That is the most idiotic, illogical bullshit I've ever read on this board. Put your big boy pants on or else go back to your video games.

All irrelevant. The same Supreme Court that gave fags the right to marry....also gave cops the right to remove you from your vehicle while on a lawful traffic stop...for any reason they want, or no reason at all. If he thinks you just look too comfortable...he can sat get out. And you have to. SCOTUS. Maryland vs Wilson.

 

[dannyboys]

Anyway Karma bite in the ass. Don't mouth off and refuse to comply with a LEOs commands.
When a LEO stops anyone for any reason they never know who the person is. Do they have a loaded gun in their lap? Are they going to flee? Do they have a trunk full of heroin?

LEOs are trained to 'secure the scene'. That means removing anything that could be used as a weapon. A lit cigarette is considered to be a potential weapon.
Have a lit cigarette grond into your face and decide if it's a weapon.

So she was INSIDE her car and he felt threatened that she was going to:
1. Jump out of her car
2. Take him down
3. Pin him to the ground
4. Grind her cig into his face.

That is the most idiotic, illogical bullshit I've ever read on this board. Put your big boy pants on or else go back to your video games.

The LEO could tell immediately this negro ***** was going to be a problem by the way she was behaving.
When a LEO orders you to put out your cigarette you do it. Period.
Many years ago I had pulled someone over for a traffic violation. The person was smoking. I did not ask that he put the cigarette out. I asked for his paper work. When he handed them to me as I reached my hand through the open window to take the papers he took the cigarette out of his mouth and ground it into the top of my hand. Then he sped off. He was pursued and crashed and his trunk was full of cocaine.
I learned a lesson that day.

 

[bucs90]

Pennsylvania v. Mimms - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Even before Wilson......

1977 Pennsylvania vs Mimms, SCOTUS ruling.

The court said just for general safety, such as vehicles approaching the stop or possible hidden weapons in the car....the cop can remove a driver for "officer safety" WITHOUT any clear articulable threat. Court ruled that this is only "minimally more invasive" and the balance of 4th Amendment and officer safety is reasonable by removing a driver for general safety.

So....you see.....TWO SCOTUS cases validate this cop. He doesn't need a specific reason. Just the blanket "officer safety" concern is enough.

You may not like it. We don't like homo marriage. But both are law. And you liberals should be against this obvious unlawful prosecution.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Anyway Karma bite in the ass. Don't mouth off and refuse to comply with a LEOs commands.
When a LEO stops anyone for any reason they never know who the person is. Do they have a loaded gun in their lap? Are they going to flee? Do they have a trunk full of heroin?

LEOs are trained to 'secure the scene'. That means removing anything that could be used as a weapon. A lit cigarette is considered to be a potential weapon.
Have a lit cigarette grond into your face and decide if it's a weapon.

So she was INSIDE her car and he felt threatened that she was going to:
1. Jump out of her car
2. Take him down
3. Pin him to the ground
4. Grind her cig into his face.

That is the most idiotic, illogical bullshit I've ever read on this board. Put your big boy pants on or else go back to your video games.

All irrelevant. The same Supreme Court that gave fags the right to marry....also gave cops the right to remove you from your vehicle while on a lawful traffic stop...for any reason they want, or no reason at all. If he thinks you just look too comfortable...he can sat get out. And you have to. SCOTUS. Maryland vs Wilson.

They have the authority to do a lot of things but they need to have reasons or else cops can shoot random people and say the law allows them too, which it does, but the situation has to match it. You're spending a lot of time pretending to not understand this.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Pennsylvania v. Mimms - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Even before Wilson......

1977 Pennsylvania vs Mimms, SCOTUS ruling.

The court said just for general safety, such as vehicles approaching the stop or possible hidden weapons in the car....the cop can remove a driver for "officer safety" WITHOUT any clear articulable threat. Court ruled that this is only "minimally more invasive" and the balance of 4th Amendment and officer safety is reasonable by removing a driver for general safety.

So....you see.....TWO SCOTUS cases validate this cop. He doesn't need a specific reason. Just the blanket "officer safety" concern is enough.

You may not like it. We don't like homo marriage. But both are law. And you liberals should be against this obvious unlawful prosecution.

No one disputes this is a law, he needs a reason for the action. The reason cant be "Because I can"

 

[bucs90]

Anyway Karma bite in the ass. Don't mouth off and refuse to comply with a LEOs commands.
When a LEO stops anyone for any reason they never know who the person is. Do they have a loaded gun in their lap? Are they going to flee? Do they have a trunk full of heroin?

LEOs are trained to 'secure the scene'. That means removing anything that could be used as a weapon. A lit cigarette is considered to be a potential weapon.
Have a lit cigarette grond into your face and decide if it's a weapon.

So she was INSIDE her car and he felt threatened that she was going to:
1. Jump out of her car
2. Take him down
3. Pin him to the ground
4. Grind her cig into his face.

That is the most idiotic, illogical bullshit I've ever read on this board. Put your big boy pants on or else go back to your video games.

The LEO could tell immediately this negro ***** was going to be a problem by the way she was behaving.
When a LEO orders you to put out your cigarette you do it. Period.
Many years ago I had pulled someone over for a traffic violation. The person was smoking. I did not ask that he put the cigarette out. I asked for his paper work. When he handed them to me as I reached my hand through the open window to take the papers he took the cigarette out of his mouth and ground it into the top of my hand. Then he sped off. He was pursued and crashed and his trunk was full of cocaine.
I learned a lesson that day.

I had one on his cell phone. He had a suspended tag. No biggie, I was gonna write him a ticket and tell him to fix it before court. I DIDN'T KNOW he had a stolen gun and half pound of weed in the trunk.

As I sat the car writing the ticket...he was calling friends to come to the scene. He got out to come "ask me a question". As he did....friends ran into his car and sped off. He said "Oh shit you let somebody steal my car!!!" Brilliant criminal trick. Backup found the car abandoned 2 blocks away. Weed and gun in it but guess what....chain of custody is ruined and can't charge him for it.

After that I wouldn't let anyone talk on their phone during a stop and many got irate about it. Oh well.

 

[bucs90]

Pennsylvania v. Mimms - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Even before Wilson......

1977 Pennsylvania vs Mimms, SCOTUS ruling.

The court said just for general safety, such as vehicles approaching the stop or possible hidden weapons in the car....the cop can remove a driver for "officer safety" WITHOUT any clear articulable threat. Court ruled that this is only "minimally more invasive" and the balance of 4th Amendment and officer safety is reasonable by removing a driver for general safety.

So....you see.....TWO SCOTUS cases validate this cop. He doesn't need a specific reason. Just the blanket "officer safety" concern is enough.

You may not like it. We don't like homo marriage. But both are law. And you liberals should be against this obvious unlawful prosecution.

No one disputes this is a law, he needs a reason for the action. The reason cant be "Because I can"

YOU AREN'T GETTING IT. The "reason" is plainly just general safety. You can't know the unknown. The court clearly ruled this. He doesn't need a specified reason.

And shooting someone isn't the same. Graham vs Connor already ruled on that.


You simply don't get it or refuse to accept it. The Supreme Court had already ruled....twice....that cops can take you out of a car for the simple reason of general safety to defend against the unknown. It's law. Repeat...it's LAW.

You may not like it. Honestly....I think it grants a tad too much authority. But it DOES do it and it's law. The law literally does basically grant the "because I can".

Another SCOTUS rule also regulates how LONG he can keep you out of the car. The stop can only last an amount of time that is "reasonable". So the cop CAN make you get out of the car "Because I can"....but if it's a simple traffic ticket and NO OTHER suspicion or violation is present he can NOT keep you on the sidewalk for 2 hours just to be a dick. The rule of thumb for police trainers is that if all you have is a simple traffic violation...the stop should be over within 10 minutes.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Great, so take your elongated version of "Because I can" and run with it.